Firstly, I see a lack of meaningful communication in the classroom. Of course, much of the lesson content is based on students’ PERCEIVED needs and expectations, but the methodology must come from my own convictions of teaching, and I do not believe that what I am doing now necessarily matches up with those beliefs. I also do not believe the learning objectives can be effectively reached using my present teaching methods.

the literature points out the necessity for meaningful communication rather than talking for sake of having students produce language structures. a lot of the communication in my classroom seems to be out of context classroom english with the goal of having students produce target structures. Although there are elements of communication and chances for students to construct meaning and explore native level production, the basis of the lessons is grammar served on a silver platter and reinforced with repetition, drills and substitution. the amount of free, meaningful communication in the lesson is minimal.

Considering my conviction that a social-constructive stance on language teaching is most effective I see very little evidence of such an approach in lessons. Lessons are still mostly teacher-centered and form-focused.

In children’s lessons again I see a tendency to present form and give practice opportunity rather than the students themselves having the chance to construct meaning and use what they learn in a meaningful way. many of my beliefs on early child 2LA have been based on the premises of “The younger the better” and that for young children there should be no difference in 1LA and 2LA at all. I see now that there is no strong empirical evidence for these beliefs and can understand why my students have progressed so slowly.

I see the need for an immediate evaluation of my curriculum with a strong development plan. I will start with recording my lessons and going back over lesson plans and lesson notes. I also need to do much more reading and if possible observe some other teacher’s effective lessons.

Take for example the concept of Pivotal Grammar in FLA. Children learn to put two words of a different kind together to represent a meaning they wish to communicate. For example “Mummy eat” might mean “Mummy, I want to eat something.” The child’s concepts are expressed in the simplest way in order to achieve their communicative goal. In the above case the child wants food. In second or foreign language learning we do not see this same pattern. Students tend to grasp on to formulaic expressions which have a direct connection with similar phrases in their first language. In the beginning they use basic phrases for introductory functions and requests, then the complexity increases until they have competence to produce more complex sentences for a variety of functions. This is related firstly to the teaching style, which in many schools today is still very much grammar-focused. It is also due to the fact that when learning a second language students analyse what they learn in relation to their pre-held concepts and the similarity to the first language.

Another key factor seems to be motivation. Vygotsky shows learning language as a key element in the socialization process. Babies learn to talk as they have the need to correspond with their parents, mostly to communicate their needs or feelings. This is reflected in the order in which syntax is learned. The earliest words are related to food, sleep and being held. Then they learn words to express WANT or NOT WANT, and feelings related to needs such as hunger or sleepiness. As they develop the concept of self versus other then they start using words like MINE or YOURS. But this differs greatly in the majority of second language learning contexts. Most people learn a second language in school as part of a curriculum. I for example learned French. This was not for communication, I did not need French at all, I was learning it to earn grades and pass tests. My focus was thus on remembering vocabulary and having correct sentence structure. Even today I can still recall (with dread) French conjugations. But I am unable to use French as I did not acquire it.

Looking at things in this way I have a strong tendency to think of it as First Language Acquisition versus Second/Foreign Language Learning.

Many of my strategies and concepts related to this topic have been based around an assumption that students can acquire a language and in fact that anyone can acquire a language. I have even pointed out to students that if a little baby can acquire a language then surely they will be fine. But now I am in doubt. Firstly I am in doubt as to whether ANYONE can successfully acquire a language or not. Secondly, if the second language is learnt rather than acquired then it should be taught more formally and students should be assisted in analysis of the language. As pointed out in the text on language aptitude, both memorization and also analyzation are important. Students need language chunks they remember and can draw upon without analysis, but they also need some analysis to help them understand and achieve creativity with the new language.

This brings me to an important question: Do we create motive for students such as tasks or communicative goals in order that they might acquire language rather than just “learn”? Even if we do so, will it help them in the long run if their real motive is simply to finish a course? The other choice of course is to focus on the students’ real motives and needs for learning a language. In this way our teaching content and method should vary according to class.

I need much more reading and research on these points.

I was first of all kind of shocked by the simplicity (for the lack of a nicer word) of their beliefs. One example is that learning a second language is mostly just a matter of memorizing loads of vocabulary. I was even more shocked by the fact that over the three years of their study such beliefs did not really change at all.

However I call into question the validity of the research tool, BALLI. By posing such stereotype statements you are automatically leading the thinking of the students. First year students especially have very few ideas about their subject matter and are open to suggestion. Such suggestions in the name of RESEARCH could even be harmful as they may be accepted by students who would then be led in their thinking to selectively learn, their thoughts guided by unintentionally placed premises. This may be a little extreme but it is a possibility.

If I were to carry out the research I would ask the first year students some open-ended questions to find out their beliefs BEFORE COMMENCING STUDY. I would then check if they still had those beliefs at the end of each semester. It would be made clear to the students that it was a kind of BEFORE / DURING / AFTER survey and was based not on any held theories but rather focusing on the students’ beliefs only.

Coming back to the subject of the article, I do agree with the writer that it highlights the importance of firstly knowing what students believe, and secondly helping them to change any beliefs that may be damaging to their effectiveness as teachers.

Although I have read about and thought about language acquisition quite a lot in the recent years I did not realize how the different theories differed and related. I was aware of course of behaviorism and the concept of tabula rasa. It was the first time I read the word nativism, although the concepts were very familiar with me. Then there was constructivism. This is the area of most interest to me at this moment. The text made mention of studies by Piaget, but I am more sided with Vygotsky and agree very much with is criticisms of Piaget’s work in his book “Thought and Language”. Vygotsky places a lot of emphasis on language as a tool in communicating with a parent to meet needs, and how the cultural context strongly influences the language used and this in turn molds the thinking of the child.

I enjoyed the detailed discussion of baby language. This had particular meaning to me as I have a 1 and a half year old son and a 2 and a half year old son. The point that particularly made sense was the tendency of children to focus more on function than form. I have experienced as both a father and also as a teacher the frustration of trying to correct the English children use. I believe this reflects Vygotsky’s theory that language is directly related to achieving a (communicative) task with another person, per se a social function. They speak with a purpose so as long as the purpose is achieved the form is not important to them.

The whole concept of pivotal grammar is new to me. The use of two different kinds of words to achieve a goal seems natural how ever. I will watch my younger boy to see what kind of words he uses.

One idea discussed in the second reading was PRACTICE. I however have yet to see a child practicing, whether it be learning their first or second language. As for myself, when learning a language I often play around and substitute grammar and vocabulary to practice speaking. This helps me gain confidence using the language. I also encourage my adult students to do the same thing.

The second element of my teaching philosophy is my beliefs about teaching resulting from my studies and experience. In brief, I believe students learn most by interacting with the learning material in a way that is meaningful to them. As a teacher I am to provide and facilitate chances for students be exposed to and use language that is relevant to them. I should create a positive educational atmosphere where students can feel free to apply what they learn. It is also my job to be responsive to students. The world today is undergoing rapid changes due to technology and communications. I need to be alert to changes in my students and their needs so that I can adapt my lesson to suit them best.

The third element of my teaching philosophy is beliefs about students and learning coming from my own experiences as a learner as well as teaching experience and academic studies. As briefly touched on above, I believe that all students have the potential to learn for themselves and develop. Students need to be taught HOW to learn and be given opportunity and support in constructing knowledge together in the classroom.

In summary, if I prepare lessons well according to learning outcomes which are in accord with the identity of the Institute, and if in the lesson I am alert to the situation of the students and adapt lessons so as to optimize learning and minimize obstacles, then students are able to quickly develop.

What will I write? Maybe some things about what I am studying, some things about Japan, and just general ideas. Hopefully some stories will come with time. I don?t know. In many ways it scares me as this is what I always want to do but have not yet succeeded at doing. Well, have to give it a try.

Mac-Journal is really helpful with the full screen mode – green text on a black background. All distractions gone. Should be an interesting experiment.

Here?s to creativity!

So I, my friends, can enjoy internet for free wherever I go, WITHOUT google’s help.

Going hybrid | Economist.com

I was on a train with my wife and 1 year old son the other day coming home from a trip to Tokyo.  My wife is 8mths pregnant.  The train was full as it was peak time.  We were standing and within a meter and a half of where we stood was a priority seat where 4 teens where sitting.  Above them was a sign saying to give a seat to pregnant people and people with kids.  It also said to power off your phones, but they were busy messaging.  It made me so mad.  I wanted to pull them out of the seats and throw them across the train, but my wife would let me.  This is just one case of the bad manners I see from Japanese people every day.  Remember, Japanese may be polite, but they are not well-mannered.

via FoxyTunes 

Trackstick.com

This is great! A usb stick gps to track your holidays for google earth.

Blogged with Flock

—————-
Now playing: Metallica – House Jack Built

Tags: googleearth gps